Bacchys:

Yemen isn't mentioned in the AUMF, and Mexico City isn't excluded. If it's a global grant of power to wage war, which is what both the Bush and Obama Administrations have asserted, being in Mexico City isn't a protection.


There's a spot of confusion here. I thought that the slippery slope argument was about this claimed war power migrating into a law enforcement tool. As in:

The President could decide an American involved with Mexican cartels falls under its logic, or one protesting a U.S. corporation's business practices in a Third World country.


I was using "Mexico City" as a stand in for that idea, and my objection to that slipper slope argument is that the law enforcement application is, in fact, bounded by law. In the first place, the president would not be acting as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy. in the second place, there is statutory law on this subject. Thirdly, there is case law on it. That was why I didn't think that it was a reasonable slippery slope argument.

However, you seem to be suggesting above that the slippery slope is about location, that the president has the power under this (to date unseen) executive order to kill Anwar al-Aulaqi if he knew the timeand location of the target in Mexico City. But in that case, custody is forseeable and possible, in my view, in a way it isn't in Yemen. (You could extend this line of reasoning to suggest that if the target was in Chicago...)

But I freely admit that this is my own formulation, which is sort of reverse engineered. I have no way of knowing whether that's how the executive order reads. You are quite right that the executive order doesn't need to be classified, and it should be released.

I don't know if there is any place else to go with this.

But I would sure like to know from you (and/or anyone who disagrees with my reasoning) just what you think we should or do in a case like this? How far does this "citizenship shield" extend? Should Obama have just let al-Aulaqi continue on his way until such time as he could be arrested?  Does your constitsutional understanding require that, absent capture, al-Aulaqi is free to do whatever mischeif he may conceive?

I understand the criticism of my position, and I think much of it is reasonable. But what's the alterative?


Edited 1 time by nessus2 09/07/12 15:21.